The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control & Licensing is attached.

The Hearing Panel considered a report from the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing.  The Hearing Panel also considered the written papers of the parties and the oral representations of the parties in attendance as well as the relevant legislation. 

The representative from GMP addressed the Panel, stating that this event was for the weekend of the Caribbean Carnival, which was one of GMP’s busiest weekends, and was billed as a Carnival event so people attending the Carnival in Alexandra Park would then go onto this event.  He stated that the application lacked detail, including in relation to how the numbers attending would be restricted, security arrangements and welfare provision.  He stated that no further information had been provided from the applicant since the application was received and that, if anything further was received now, there would not be sufficient time to scrutinise new information.

The applicant stated that he had submitted the same application as he had done for a previous event he had put on for the Jubilee, which had been approved.  He apologised that no further contact had been made, stating that he was still learning the procedures for submitting these applications and wanted to build a relationship with the Licensing Team and GMP.  He also stated that his organisation was volunteer-led and that he had been away.   He stated that he had an Event Management Plan which he wanted to present to the Panel at today’s meeting which provided the necessary information, including the dispersion policy, security, welfare and event management.  He informed the Panel that it would be a ticketed event and that the capacity would be 300, not 475 as stated in the application.  In response to a question from the Panel, he confirmed that the hours of the event were the same as for the approved Jubilee event.  In response to a question from the Panel, he outlined how they would prevent non-ticketed people from gaining entry, using an accredited security firm and a wristband system.  In response to a Panel Member’s concerns about disorder outside the venue, which was on a residential road, the applicant highlighted that the entrance was on a different road, away from the residential area and that security guards would move people on.  In response to a question about any previous incidents, the applicant reported that he had had to call an ambulance for someone early on at the Jubilee event at his premises but, after that, it had been a successful event.

The Panel discussed the document submitted today, noting that the decision could not be deferred to a later date, due to the proximity of the event, but that the representative from GMP had stated that he would need to take this to his senior officers and that they would need time to consider it.

GMP summed up saying that most Jubilee parties had been peaceful and that this additional information had not been required for those events but that thousands of people would be attending the Carnival and that, even though this was a ticketed event, people could hear through word-of-mouth that there was a post-carnival event and turn up at the venue.  He stated that GMP had not seen the new information provided today and had not had the opportunity to scrutinise this so, in his view, the application should be refused.

In summing up, the applicant acknowledged the lateness of the additional information, due to inexperience with the processes, and reiterated his commitment to working with the Council and GMP.  He stated that this event would be part of the celebrations for 50 years of the Caribbean Carnival and that, while after-parties had previously been held elsewhere, he wanted to bring it closer to the neighbourhood.

The Panel agreed with GMP that the document should not be considered for the purposes of the hearing. It should have been disclosed earlier to GMP, other responsible authorities and local councillors.      

The Panel agreed with GMP that, based upon the original application, there were significant concerns whether the premises would be capable of managing the event satisfactorily without failing in its duty to uphold the licensing objectives.  Whilst it felt that, with sufficient measures put in place, the premises could effectively manage the inside of the premises there was no confidence that the premises could control the activities going on outside the premises in a residential setting.  No regard had been given to the dispersal of customers in the early hours of the morning and the Panel had concerns that on-street drinking could occur creating a public nuisance for residents and a fear of crime and disorder breaking out.

The Panel had no confidence that the applicant would be capable of upholding the licensing objectives should the TEN be granted. 

In reaching its decision, the Committee considered the licensing objectives, Licensing Act 2003, s182 guidance and Manchester City Council’s Licensing Policy.

Decision

To refuse the application.